Suppose, for a moment, that you are a
dictator. You envy or hate some
people, or you are very greedy and you think now it is the time to loot

that weakly-defended nation. The
secretary of state shows you that

the estimated incomes make the operation
economy wise into a very
good business. What are the factors you need to think, if you prefer
to stay in power for a looong time (like almost all dictators do)?

First, you will need an excuse. If you just launch an invasion, sooner
or later many weaker nations will form a coalition against you in order
to maintain peaceful conditions and perhaps to punish the aggressor

nation (that will be you). This will be
easier, if you have very superior
media influence, so whatever you invent, thousands of media outlets
will explain it without too critical tone. Some of your nation's young
men will die, and basically you cannot just send them abroad and
order them to "make a little looting" or to "revenge an insult".

Secondly, you need competent military to execute your plans. You
need to have significant force superiority. You should expect the
attacking military forces available to the front line will be 5-fold or
stronger compared to the victim state. If this is not the case, the
attacker may have fallen into some kind of trap, or the situation is
desperate for them or in the most common case the information

regarding the true attacker is false (a
hoax).

Wars are winnable with a smaller superiority margin, but they will
be
so exhausting, that all the participants will be weakened when
the war
is over. So what you wish will be a nice little war with fast
and clean
victory ľand all the fruits of the conquest.

Thirdly, you need to consider particularly great damages possible.

You don't want to see a major power
coming to help your victim,
because your careful plans and designed force superiority easily
goes astray. You don't wish to cause global famine, lack of oil or
huge losses into your population due some surprise weapons of
mass destruction (wmd's). This wmd consideration is a new one,

existing since 1944 or so with recently
invented atomic weapons.

Looking back in history, can we see that
some of the wars are
framed? That some of the wars actually are not fought with just
cause? This is an important question, because if the controlling
media superiority exists, you will not read the true answer from
mainstream news magazine or see it from international TV news.

Actually, most of the wars are framed. The weaker nations never
started those wars whatever the media is telling you. Democracies
do not start wars (supposing true democracies). Dictators wish to
stay in power, so they never start a war against superior forces.
The US is able to start wars, because it is a corporate fascist state
just posing as a democracy (the change was made at least 100
years ago).

You also need to consider the nature of military operations. If
you thought wild Finns with a population of 4 millions attacked
the Soviet Union with a population of 200 millions, there could
be something not quite matching in this thinking. In 1939 they
said Finns shot some artillery shells and killed a few peasants.

What a great strategy! To kill a few
people from a nation which
recently had killed some 20 millions of their own people? And
what was our follow-up strategy?
Not existing, no other moves
ever made.

In real attacks the attacker has an objective and he will
deliver
a series of attacks aimed to some goals.
No nation will
ever
deliver just a single punch against a strong enemy and then
start waiting what the consequences might be.

In these judgements the use of your own brains is mandatory.
The Truth is not easily found printed in the magazines. All the
mainstream media is owned by our true rulers, and it is being
used like a big brainwashing machine. Very little help in that
direction. The elected presidents are not the rulers. The men
behind them are. Just think a ship. There is a captain in the
bridge, but the true commanding power behind him is in the
hands of the owner, in the shipping company. The captain is
just running things locally on behalf of them.

Historical events actually happened in
just one way. Multiple,

conflicting explanations are not true.
But there is often a very
powerful interest to muddle and veil the true events. Let's look
at the president Kennedy's assassination 22.11.63. If you were
Oswald, and you planned to shoot the president, you would not
a) pick a cheap, low-accuracy rifle b) shoot in that difficult target
(you would have shot earlier, when the car was still approaching).

The real
assassins had better, cross-fire positions like the railway
bridge in the front, the grassy knoll and the building frontside of
the car's route. And you actually saw, how president's head was
violently ejected backwards, and how mrs Kennedy tried to pick
parts of his husband's skull in the left rear of the car. So the
killing shot clearly came from the right front direction (grassy
knoll). Those behind this assassination had a huge interest to
cover up their tracks. This is why you never see the true story
published in their controlled media. And they have controlled
all the significant media for more than 100 years.

Please notice,
just making the claim and using the
media will be
enough. No one asks painful questions, like what kind of strategy
was behind these devious attacks? So you just frame an incident
and then blame someone not understanding what is happening.
In this Finnish example based on Moscow archives we now know
that the Soviets planted a few artillery shells
into a field of a border
village, and then exploded them with remote control.
If you quickly
win the ensuing small war, odds are that nobody
cares or dares
to ask questions, and the new status quo will
prevail.

The claim of the truth movement is, that
the 9-11 incident was
not a terrorist attack using hijacked airliners. And the perpetual

"War on Terror" that followed, is not
based on terror incidents but
rather is based on neocon motives of domination and looting the
natural resources of other nations in global scale.

We need to take a quick look into
American history to find out, if
it is possible that some wars have been fought without the purest
of motives in mind. So the question is: are some American wars

actually "False Flag" operations, where
it just looks that the
weaker nation has boldly attacked the U.S.A. without a strategy
and without any hope of success?

New insight on some American wars

Very few of those wars are real ones.
The American war of Independence,

1776 to 1779 was one. The Americans
under the British oppressive rule
broke free. The second war of Independence, 1812 to 1814 also was a
real one. The British, based on Canada, tried to re-take the U.S.A. but
due failed naval battles at Great Lakes they were forced to abandon the
re-conquest. The British Empire was still considered the leading super-
power for the next hundred years if not longer. The rest of the American
wars are not genuine.

There is the takeover of Texas and the
Mexican war 1846 to 1848. It is
supposed the Mexican military mad some ill-thought moves, but actually
it seems Americans built and operated a fortress almost 100 miles behind
the Mexican border. The planned clashes of military units led to a general
war, in which the still weak Mexican republic lost some 1/3 of it's land areas.
These successes are often attributed to president Polk, but I suggest some
type of think-tank making longer-span plans behind the known events. Thisoperation spanned some 30 years,
starting with Florida and the settlement
of the then-Mexican Texas.

1861-1865 commonly known as
the American Civil war started
with covert
outside influence. The British Empire tried once again, but this time as a
leader of a coalition. The American Civil war was meant to split America
into two weaker, warring nations. Had this happened as planned, those
nations could have been played against each other repeatedly. The war

was successfully triggered, and the
intention was that a coalition of British,

French, Spanish and Austro-Hungarians
would all diplomatically recognize
the Confederation. The British Empire was the ruling naval power, and the

French were the second-strongest at sea.
The Spanish felt there was
something fishy in the way their former-held Mexico lost a third of their
lands. It was also the intention to launch a naval embargo against the
Union to support the Confederation, which with this help then propably
could have been able to enforce the terms or narrowly defeat the Union.

But the Russia intervened. Their
Atlantic fleet sailed into New York, and
their Pacific fleet sailed into San Francisco (these being the biggest US
ports at that time). The Russia also declared 1863 that it would be a
casus belli (cause of war) if any of those European powers do recognize
the Confederation. Russia was a formidable land power with a population
of 100 millions (like the U.S.A.) so the Europeans, which had recently been
at war with the Russia backed off and so the US Civil war become quite
one-sided with the Union actually blockading the Confederation and not
the other way round.

The 1898 US-Spanish war was
triggered by an explosion sinking the US
battleship Maine into the Havana bay. The Hearst press (leading media
at that time) immediately blamed the Spanish. So there was no need to
further research the cause of the sinking. The Americans captured many
Spanish colonies, and sunk the Spanish navy. Some 5000 American
and 15 000 Spanish soldiers died. The conquest of the Philippines still
took some 600 000 native casualties as the Americans suppressed the
freedom-wanting Philippinos. Now we know, after an American admiral
Hyman Rickover researched the cause of the Maine explosion, and 1976
published his study, that it was an inside job, either a bomb inside the
USS Maine or a coal explosion.

The
World War 1 involved the Germany
exhausting the French and the
British, and defeating the much bigger, 3.6 million size Russian army.

The US joined the war based on the
Lusitania incident. The Lusitania
was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine blockading the British
isles. Some 128 innocent Americans died with some 1000+ people from
other nations. But a single torpedo could not actually sink such a huge
ocean liner. Now we know, after archived information has been released,
that the Lusitania actually was transporting 6 million pounds of artillery
shells and rifle ammunition from the US to the British and French forces.
The passengers on board did not know this.

It was an inside job again, and a devious one in that. The then-leader
of British navy, First Sea lord Winston Churchill ordered a destroyer,
Juno, escorting the ocean liner to withdraw. The British also knew that
three German submarines patrolled that coastal area. The torpedo
explosion triggered a series of secondary explosions as the military
load of that blockade-running Lusitania started to explode. Many those
survivals told this, but the British successfully suppressed their stories.
The US joined into the World War into the British side and decided the
outcome.

The
World War 2 involved the US again
first secretly and later more or

less openly helping the British. There
was the Lend-Lease agreement
with the US hiring British military bases for 99 years. The British got
50 old destroyers, fighters, bombers and tanks and all kinds of military
ordnance. There was also much technological co-operation like some
co-operation in radars, radio direction finding and code breaking. The
US convoy escorts attacked German submarines at sea, but Germany
refused to get provoked, and maintained neutral attitude towards the
US. Then the US naval intelligence invented an indirect way to get the
US involved into the war based on the German alliance with Japan.

Most of the
Americans propably don't know the real story of the
Pearl Harbor. Only the version given in the media for the purpose
of joining the war is known. The US congress looked into the events
as recently as 1995 and still found the navy and army commanders
at Pearl Harbor incompetent. So even they didn't know the Truth.
Actually, there was a long series of acts on purpose manouvering
the Japanese into a corner, where they only had a choice either to
get deeply humiliated or to go after their own oil sources. Those old
big battleships served as a bait just like some US nuclear-powered
big carriers do in the Gulf at the moment. Today the Truth is known,
and there are many good sources for this complex story.

The top-secret American plan was called
"8 insults". It was skilfully
executed, and suddenly Japan, an industrialized nation waging war
in China found, that American volunteers, like the Flying Tigers
volunteers
air group
were helping the Chinese and there was a
total blockade
of oil
against Japan. The US, the British and the

Dutch all refused to deliver oil to
Japan which operated millions

of cars, thousands of aircraft and a huge navy.

Not surprisingly, the Japanese decided
to launch a war of conquest

In order to seize some Asian oil sources
(Borneo, Java etc.). This

war started with so-called surprise
attack against Pearl Harbour
followed up by operations suppressing and later conquering the
Philippines. In order to make successful conquests it was for the
Japanese
mandatory first to neutralize the hostile US Pacific area
military forces.

In
Korea you will find out, that the
South initiated the hostilities 1949.
Revenge and an attempt of conquest was expected, and the political
future of South Korean and Nationalist Chinese leaders depended
on it.

In Viet Nam you will find out,
that the South attacked the North weekly
from the sea and just before the Maddox incident the South invaded
some North-held islands at sea. The Americans were so eager to get
involved into a small local war they didn't really need a provocation.
The next day American carrier planes destroyed more than half of
the North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats (some 25 of them).